W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2009

Re: [LC response] To Richard H. McCullough

From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 19:57:53 -0400
Message-ID: <20090513.195753.206929433.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [LC response] To Richard H. McCullough
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 22:18:43 +0100

> On 13 May 2009, at 22:10, Sebastian Rudolph wrote:
> 
>> OK, there seem to be two irreconcilable opinions here, one strongly in
>> favour of conceiving a class as a "concept extension set" and one
>> heavily against it. I guess my attempt of satisfying both sides by some
>> paraphrasing has failed... :S
>> In triggering Richard to draft the below text suggestion I am even
>> afraid to have made things worse... while I could have lived with
>> "extension set", this isn't bearable even from my - well - diplomatic
>> point of view.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
>> Bijan, you want to give it a try and draft a response-response-response?
>> Or (forgive my ignorance, I'm just the newby...) what exactly is the
>> official procedure in this case?
> 
> We can try to get him to accept our resolution (not to include crazy
> talk in the primer). Or we can say, "Oh well, we'll let the director
> know". Frankly, I'm not so very inclined to argue with him and
> furthermore, I don't see that satisfying him has much chance of
> improving the spec. So, if Sandro is ok with it, I would suggest leaving
> matters as they stand with perhaps a short message saying, "Sorry, but
> we won't accept that text."
> 
> It's a freaking editorial point, for crying out loud!
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

I'm with Bijan on this one.  Our next step should be to say that the
Working Group will not include his proposed changes, and then just carry
the disagreement through the rest of the W3C process.  I do not believe
that there is any chance for a reconcilliation here.  

Of course, it is truely crazy to go through such a heavyweight process
on an editorial matter in a document that has no normative force
whatsoever.

peter

PS:  Can this sort of non-agreement be carried through the W3C process
in a timely manner?  That is, do we have to put everything together at
our next publication point and wait for official approval or can we get
a pre-approval on just this bit?
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 23:57:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC